Seems the gap between Doo and Poo is getting smaller!
Ace
Ace
17 174 Axys is 442 lbs...
- Thread starter Ace Freely
- Start date
That's 1 lb heavier than the G4 165. That's awesome that they are that close in dry weight. Makes you realize that the new Doo chassis is even better than we originally thought. :face-icon-small-coo
What is a 174 G4 174"??
And with the power of the New Doo motor to add to the package. Doo wins hands down in the pwr to weight ratio in the stock mountain class. Going to be a great 17 season!
S
maybe cat will bring some competition.
Not available in 174
F
Called skidoo today about the 174 on the G4.. The spokman said there was a new email response given from corporate office today on this.. Sounds like they could be reassessing it with all the interest showing..
The 174 is pushing any belt drive to its limits, let alone a three inch lug..
The 174 is pushing any belt drive to its limits, let alone a three inch lug..
As a retired farmer, I will have to disagree with that statement.
I think they can keep pushing a while before they approach the load a variable speed rotor belt carries on the average combine!
Don't worry about track technology either, we had 36" Camoplasts on the tractor! ��
(Just a joke as I'm sure you know this being from the Hat area. I farmed not too far away)
S
"The 174 is pushing any belt drive to its limits, let alone a three inch lug.."
-I disagree with that one by a long shot-
My belt drive holds up to a lot of abuse. I've been running the 3" 174 on my sled from the first year they started selling those tracks.
The power my sled puts out has broken both the 13 and 15 wide chains in a few trips.
My driveshaft, that the drivers are pressed onto, rinkled up like a tin can under the massive engine torque and spun my driver bases out in the process. This was back when I had a 163x2.33 track.
I now have the solid rod inside my driveshaft welded in by Avid and a belt drive. I have run this for 7 years with up to 26psi of boost powering a 174x3" track on my 1200.
My belt drive has performed flawlessly without even needing adjustment while the stock rear suspension crumpled and twisted itself up from the power being fed through it. I had to replace the rear skid with a baker setup just to keep the sled together.
I'm sold on belt drives for efficiency, strength and reliability.
I also contacted Skidoo with my 174 wish list.
I think thousands of more potential buyer requests will motivate them to come up with something.
-I disagree with that one by a long shot-
My belt drive holds up to a lot of abuse. I've been running the 3" 174 on my sled from the first year they started selling those tracks.
The power my sled puts out has broken both the 13 and 15 wide chains in a few trips.
My driveshaft, that the drivers are pressed onto, rinkled up like a tin can under the massive engine torque and spun my driver bases out in the process. This was back when I had a 163x2.33 track.
I now have the solid rod inside my driveshaft welded in by Avid and a belt drive. I have run this for 7 years with up to 26psi of boost powering a 174x3" track on my 1200.
My belt drive has performed flawlessly without even needing adjustment while the stock rear suspension crumpled and twisted itself up from the power being fed through it. I had to replace the rear skid with a baker setup just to keep the sled together.
I'm sold on belt drives for efficiency, strength and reliability.
I also contacted Skidoo with my 174 wish list.
I think thousands of more potential buyer requests will motivate them to come up with something.
Last edited:
P
^^^^^^
Same as yourself with same results.
Switched to a proto type belt system years ago due to breaking chain a couple times on a DOO.( still running it)
I just give up arguing about it.
Keep your chains as I will continue to use a belt.
Same as yourself with same results.
Switched to a proto type belt system years ago due to breaking chain a couple times on a DOO.( still running it)
I just give up arguing about it.
Keep your chains as I will continue to use a belt.
I would say that when you compare the 174" Axys to the new 163 G4, they are comparable in weight and track on the snow. Time will tell what they do when on the mtn. I am looking forward to watching them on hill next season.
I will though, put money down that the Ski-doo motor will last longer. Unless....they have a glitch when they start mass producing.
I will though, put money down that the Ski-doo motor will last longer. Unless....they have a glitch when they start mass producing.
D
maybe cat will bring some competition.
If you follow hillclimb racing or snowcross the competition is chasing Cat.
DPG
It really shows how much that matters with the dominating market share AC has...
Snowcross yes. Rmsha nope.
J
No they are chasing Tucker Hibbert not Arctic Cat
Last edited:
F
Agree to disagree.
Few years back I added belt drive on the turbo Etec when I went to the three inch 174.. Never took long and I started to have the belt jump top sprocket, talking with c3 we had thought an allinment issue, we never found anything and tightened belt tighter.. After we broke a few more belts, c3 swaped me over to a stronger mitisubsui belt.. But still had a few problems
I had called both belt manufactures and discussed with their engineers my issues and we went threw load and torque calculations of what we were using it on..
After final numbers were calculated they said we were running over 40 percent more hp than the belt recommendation, and offered some advice..
Big point was to run a wider belt, 35mm is the stock belt width from c3, and second idea was to run a taller top sprocket allowing more teeth on belt surface and run it tighter than I was told by c3
i gave there advice a try and went with 38mm belts and changed gearing and all sprockets to allow more teeth on belt and prevent less bend from the tightner
Since then I have had much better luck, but still need belt very tight or it will skip..
I also run a t3 174 with impulse turbo and run the doo stock chain.. Other than initial chain stretch, I have not looked or had any problems with it
Talked with another turbo 1200 owner a few years back about belt drive problems and he mentioned after his third broken belt in one weekend he removed kit and went back to chain with out problems again
Some guys don't have problems on the 174 tracks they say, but they are ussally running a bb rather than turbo..
Few years back I added belt drive on the turbo Etec when I went to the three inch 174.. Never took long and I started to have the belt jump top sprocket, talking with c3 we had thought an allinment issue, we never found anything and tightened belt tighter.. After we broke a few more belts, c3 swaped me over to a stronger mitisubsui belt.. But still had a few problems
I had called both belt manufactures and discussed with their engineers my issues and we went threw load and torque calculations of what we were using it on..
After final numbers were calculated they said we were running over 40 percent more hp than the belt recommendation, and offered some advice..
Big point was to run a wider belt, 35mm is the stock belt width from c3, and second idea was to run a taller top sprocket allowing more teeth on belt surface and run it tighter than I was told by c3
i gave there advice a try and went with 38mm belts and changed gearing and all sprockets to allow more teeth on belt and prevent less bend from the tightner
Since then I have had much better luck, but still need belt very tight or it will skip..
I also run a t3 174 with impulse turbo and run the doo stock chain.. Other than initial chain stretch, I have not looked or had any problems with it
Talked with another turbo 1200 owner a few years back about belt drive problems and he mentioned after his third broken belt in one weekend he removed kit and went back to chain with out problems again
Some guys don't have problems on the 174 tracks they say, but they are ussally running a bb rather than turbo..
S
Why would you not compare a 163 axys to a 165 doo???
Why do you compare it to a 174??
If you want to compare weights you better compare same lengths.
you would never compare a T3 174 to a axys or pro 163.
I agree the new doo made lots of forward progress in alot of different ways and is getting closer in dry weight but its not at the axys weight yet.
Reliability: The 800 e tech was pretty good until they got a couple thousand miles on them then some gremlins showed up.
The new 850 should be good but only time will tell, no one can predict this yet.
The old pro 800 motor got better every year but still had a dark cloud on it casted from the 11-13's 14-15 were alot better.
The Axys engine has proven to be very reliable so far in the short tracks for 2 years and mountain for 1 year. There is alot of sleds with alot of miles on them with very little issues as of yet.
So how much of that track is in the snow when the sled is tipped up on a 60 degree slope?
Might be 1/2 of the bottom only depending on how set up the snow is and the that could:
AXYS 2610/2=1305 and there is track around drivers and rear wheel that does not touch the snow so maybe another 10% less
1305 x .9=1174.5 and 1/2 that due to being on one ski (sidehill)
1174.5/2=587.25 square inches on the snow.
Doo: 2640/2=1320 and there is track around drivers and rear wheel that does not touch the snow so maybe another 10% less
1320 x .9=1188 and 1/2 that due to being on one ski (sidehill)
1188/2=594 square inches on the snow.
Could be as little as 6.75 sq. inches different But the Doo is pushing more snow due to its wider path.
Not that my math is accurate, its more of an example of how these numbers can be manipulated.
If your point is that the Doo will have more traction then the 154 Doo should be able to out-climb a 163 AXYS. Good luck on that happening.
